The Akron Legal News

5th District holds officers may install GPS device on car when acting with a warrant

JESSICA SCHAMBAUGH
Special to the Legal News
Published: May 22, 2013

A police officer may legally install a GPS tracking device on an individual’s car when he is authorized to do so by a judge, the 5th District Court of Appeals recently ruled.

Timothy Harrington argued that evidence against him in a copper theft case should have been suppressed because it was obtained during an unlawful trespass onto his property by an officer installing a GPS device on Harrington’s car.

The three-judge appellate panel, however, disagreed, and found that the officer’s actions were warranted.

“The GPS unit was authorized to be placed on appellant’s vehicle via an entry signed by a Franklin County municipal court judge,” 5th District Judge Sheila Farmer wrote for the court.

Case summary states that Reynoldsburg Police Det. Michael Binder requested a warrant to install the GPS device in February 2011. In his affidavit, Binder included his reasons based on observations and facts.

The municipal court judge granted the warrant to instal the tracking device on Harrington’s 1996 Pontiac Sunfire during the daytime or night and granted the police department permission to monitor and maintenance the device.

The warrant specifically gave the officers permission to enter the vehicle as needed to accomplish the tasks.

Based on the officers’ findings, Harrington was charged with engaging in a pattern of corrupt activity, 15 counts of burglary, six counts of breaking and entering, four counts of vandalism, and one count of attempted burglary.

All of his charges alleged Harrington had stolen copper pipe and wire from vacant homes in his area.

Harrington filed a motion to suppress all evidence and argued the officer’s installation of the GPS device was an unlawful trespass on his property.

The Fairfield County Court of Common Pleas denied his motion and he pleaded no contest.

The trial court sentenced Harrington to 15 years in prison with three years suspended in exchange for five years of community control.

Harrington appealed to the 5th District and argued that his motion to suppress was erroneously denied.

“Appellant argues the warrantless trespass upon his driveway and the installation of a GPS device on his vehicle violated his rights under the Fourth Amendment,” Farmer wrote.

The appellate panel maintained that a search warrant must be supported by probable cause and must specifically indicate the location of the search.

In this case, it found that the specific location was described as Harrington’s car. It also determined that probable cause was established.

“The municipal court judge reviewed an affidavit that set forth specific facts and observations that clearly met the probable cause standard,” Farmer stated.

“The second inquiry is whether the police, in fulfilling the directives of the entry, had the right to enter upon appellant’s private property to place the device in his vehicle.”

The judges found that when the officer placed the tracking device, Harrington’s car was parked in his driveway.

The car was not enclosed and the driveway did not have any warning or signs forbidding trespass, case summary stated.

The police detective testified that the car was parked in such a way that an officer would have had to pass the car to approach the front door.

He further stated that to install the device he simply got on the ground and slid under the car to attach it to the car’s metal frame.

“Based upon the specific facts of this case, we find no constitutional infringement by the officer who merely approached and passed the vehicle as any other visitor would. We find the trial court did not err in upholding placement of the GPS device pursuant to the entry and order of the municipal court judge,” Farmer continued.

“The judgment of the Court of Common Pleas of Fairfield County, Ohio is hereby affirmed.”

Fellow 5th District Judge William Hoffman and Presiding Judge Scott Gwin joined Farmer to form the majority.

The case is cited State v. Harrington, case No. 2013-Ohio-1864.

[Back]